Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]

Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[snarks_when_bored]

Introduction: The Illusion of Design

By Richard Dawkins

The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems).

Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.

No wonder Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” was moved to chide himself on reading the Origin of Species: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that.” And Huxley was the least stupid of men.

Charles Darwin discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design.

The breathtaking power and reach of Darwin’s idea—extensively documented in the field, as Jonathan Weiner reports in “Evolution in Action”—is matched by its audacious simplicity. You can write it out in a phrase: nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions for building embryos. Yet, given the opportunities afforded by deep time, this simple little algorithm generates prodigies of complexity, elegance, and diversity of apparent design. True design, the kind we see in a knapped flint, a jet plane, or a personal computer, turns out to be a manifestation of an entity—the human brain—that itself was never designed, but is an evolved product of Darwin’s mill.

Paradoxically, the extreme simplicity of what the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin’s dangerous idea may be its greatest barrier to acceptance. People have a hard time believing that so simple a mechanism could deliver such powerful results.

The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed.

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth.

To pursue my paradox, there is a sense in which the skepticism that often greets Darwin’s idea is a measure of its greatness. Paraphrasing the twentieth-century population geneticist Ronald A. Fisher, natural selection is a mechanism for generating improbability on an enormous scale. Improbable is pretty much a synonym for unbelievable. Any theory that explains the highly improbable is asking to be disbelieved by those who don’t understand it.

Yet the highly improbable does exist in the real world, and it must be explained. Adaptive improbability—complexity—is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve and that natural selection, uniquely as far as science knows, does solve. In truth, it is intelligent design that is the biggest victim of the argument from improbability. Any entity capable of deliberately designing a living creature, to say nothing of a universe, would have to be hugely complex in its own right.

If, as the maverick astronomer Fred Hoyle mistakenly thought, the spontaneous origin of life is as improbable as a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and having the luck to assemble a Boeing 747, then a divine designer is the ultimate Boeing 747. The designer’s spontaneous origin ex nihilo would have to be even more improbable than the most complex of his alleged creations. Unless, of course, he relied on natural selection to do his work for him! And in that case, one might pardonably wonder (though this is not the place to pursue the question), does he need to exist at all?

The achievement of nonrandom natural selection is to tame chance. By smearing out the luck, breaking down the improbability into a large number of small steps—each one somewhat improbable but not ridiculously so—natural selection ratchets up the improbability.

Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

As the generations unfold, ratcheting takes the cumulative improbability up to levels that—in the absence of the ratcheting—would exceed all sensible credence.

Many people don’t understand such nonrandom cumulative ratcheting. They think natural selection is a theory of chance, so no wonder they don’t believe it! The battle that we biologists face, in our struggle to convince the public and their elected representatives that evolution is a fact, amounts to the battle to convey to them the power of Darwin’s ratchet—the blind watchmaker—to propel lineages up the gentle slopes of Mount Improbable.

The misapplied argument from improbability is not the only one deployed by creationists. They are quite fond of gaps, both literal gaps in the fossil record and gaps in their understanding of what Darwinism is all about. In both cases the (lack of) logic in the argument is the same. They allege a gap or deficiency in the Darwinian account. Then, without even inquiring whether intelligent design suffers from the same deficiency, they award victory to the rival “theory” by default. Such reasoning is no way to do science. But science is precisely not what creation “scientists,” despite the ambitions of their intelligent-design bullyboys, are doing.

In the case of fossils, as Donald R. Prothero documents in “The Fossils Say Yes” [see the print issue], today’s biologists are more fortunate than Darwin was in having access to beautiful series of transitional stages: almost cinematic records of evolutionary changes in action. Not all transitions are so attested, of course—hence the vaunted gaps. Some small animals just don’t fossilize; their phyla are known only from modern specimens: their history is one big gap. The equivalent gaps for any creationist or intelligent-design theory would be the absence of a cinematic record of God’s every move on the morning that he created, for example, the bacterial flagellar motor. Not only is there no such divine videotape: there is a complete absence of evidence of any kind for intelligent design.

Absence of evidence for is not positive evidence against, of course. Positive evidence against evolution could easily be found—if it exists. Fisher’s contemporary and rival J.B.S. Haldane was asked by a Popperian zealot what would falsify evolution. Haldane quipped, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” No such fossil has ever been found, of course, despite numerous searches for anachronistic species.

There are other barriers to accepting the truth of Darwinism. Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

Even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

In spite of the success and admiration that he earned, and despite his large and loving family, Darwin’s life was not an especially happy one. Troubled about genetic deterioration in general and the possible effects of inbreeding closer to home, as James Moore documents in “Good Breeding,” [see print issue], and tormented by illness and bereavement, as Richard Milner’s interview with the psychiatrist Ralph Colp Jr. shows in “Darwin’s Shrink,” Darwin’s achievements seem all the more. He even found the time to excel as an experimenter, particularly with plants. David Kohn’s and Sheila Ann Dean’s essays (“The Miraculous Season” and “Bee Lines and Worm Burrows” [see print issue]) lead me to think that, even without his major theoretical achievements, Darwin would have won lasting recognition as an experimenter, albeit an experimenter with the style of a gentlemanly amateur, which might not find favor with modern journal referees.

As for his major theoretical achievements, of course, the details of our understanding have moved on since Darwin’s time. That was particularly the case during the synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian digital genetics. And beyond the synthesis, as Douglas J. Futuyma explains in “On Darwin’s Shoulders,” [see print issue] and Sean B. Carroll details further for the exciting new field of “evo-devo” in “The Origins of Form,” Darwinism proves to be a flourishing population of theories, itself undergoing rapid evolutionary change.

In any developing science there are disagreements. But scientists—and here is what separates real scientists from the pseudoscientists of the school of intelligent design—always know what evidence it would take to change their minds. One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.

Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned explicator of Darwinian evolution, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, where he was educated. Dawkins’s popular books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976), The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton, 1986), Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton, 1996), and most recently, The Ancestor’s Tale (Houghton Mifflin, 2004), which retells the saga of evolution in a Chaucerian mode.

[chronic_loser]

Please insert "newtonian" into the sentence before "laws of behavior" to qualify the third sentence from the end. Otherwise, the two say the same thing.

[js1138]

"Laws" of physics are just concise descriptions of what we see. Based on the recent postings of Tortoise it seems reasonable to believe there are hidden variables in QM and that we might never be able to discern them.

In other words, indeterminancy could be false, but it could be impossible to detect the falseness.

In either scenerio your concerns are groundless. It is the assumption of randomness and indeterminancy at the quantum level that makes such deterministic things as computers, DVDs and GPS locaters possible.

The assumption that all things have causes is based on experience. It holds true at the ordinary level of perception, but fails at the quantum level. So the shoe is on the other foot. Our very best and most careful observations contradict the assumption of causation. We cannot reasonably assert that causation is axiomatic.

[chronic_loser]

We cannot reasonably assert that causation is axiomatic.

....yet you seem reasonably assured enough of it to respond in this forum....?

I was giving a talk to some kids at Duke (I live in Durham NC) on the reasonableness of Christianity. Afterwards one kid was talking with several of us and was questioning the assumptions of causality and all. He was a dual major in physics and philosophy and a very bright kid. I commended him on rejecting the Western view of reality in favor of the Eastern mystical view of all the world as maya, as I believe it to be more consistent with the assertions of randomness and irrationality at the root of his worldview. I then asked him if he could live on that viewpoint, or did he have to leave it in the lab. He got a confused look, so I asked him to leave the room a second, and then commented on the fact that he used the door, rather than just walking thru the wall. He responded that there was an illusion of order in the observable world, and he wasn't a quark. I was just as confused over his answer as I am at yours. It may be just that I am not a physicist. But then again, it could be something else.

[chronic_loser]

So what happens when experience, as in carefully controlled experiment, demonstrates an absence of causation?

Sorry, missed this question earlier. The question is a good one, but is poorly worded. The reason is that causation is not an empirical entity and we can observe neither its presence nor its absence (again, thanks Dave). We do not "observe" (my word, not yours) causation at all, but rather infer it from experience. The question then becomes what about when we run carefully controlled experiments and the behavior of the observed entities do NOT give us reason to infer causality? This does not "demonstrate an absence of causality" but simply states that the behavior of what we observe here does not give us reason to infer it. Our options then seem to me to be two:

1) Assume that causality itself fails on the level we are observing, or

2) Assume that there are properties in what is being observed that we do not fully understand and assume that when they are more fully comprehended, the principles of causality will be seen to be applicable.

I guess you can tell where I am at present. At any rate, thanks for interacting,and please be assured that I am always open to shifting my perspective, should I be convinced that I need to do so.

[js1138]

I was just as confused over his answer as I am at yours.

What I am discussing is the result of empiricism, not mysticism. You cannot walk through walls, but at the quantum level, particles can move from one location to another without traversing the intervening space. Engineers rely on this phenomenon in designing everyday appliances sold at Walmart.

I am not peddling Star Trek transporters or faster than light travel. I think these are unlikely if not impossible.

I am simply saying that intuitive notions like causation are subject to revision or even contradiction by careful an systematic observation.

[js1138]

We do not "observe" (my word, not yours) causation at all, but rather infer it from experience.

Experience at the quantum level diverges from experience at the macro level.

[chronic_loser]

Could you live with this statement?

"You cannot walk through walls, but at the quantum level, particles can move from one location to another without being observed traversing the intervening space"

and then going on to the possible revisions of worldviews principles of causation this would birth?

[Snowbelt Man]

only if you refuse His infinite mercy given in the form of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus of Nazareth. when people voluntarily reject His mercy, then they voluntarily submit themselves to His justice - based on His terms - not their own. there's really no contest between His mercy and His justice. He leaves it up to each person to choose the basis upon that person will be judged. do you want mercy or justice?

again, this may all be a big myth. Jesus may have been the biggest con man who ever lived or maybe He didn't even really live. but i don't think so.

Jesus came out of the grave and His appearance to a small sect of frightened Jews changed them into a band of brothers who brought down the most powerful empire on earth and changed western civilization forever. to those who receive Him, He makes Himself just as real as He did 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem after He came out of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb that was guarded by Rome's finest. God is the most pro choice character in the universe. He leaves everyone's eternal judgment (as well as most other issues in life) up to them.

[js1138]

That would not be a correct statement.

[chronic_loser]

ok. then we are saying really different things. have to leave it hanging there at that for now, as I am sure both of us have work to do.

As always, it is a delight to talk with you and thank you for showing me the courtesy of interacting.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It is a trivial exercise to duplicate the results of the two slit experiment in the abstract with a computer and an algorithm you could write on a cocktail napkin.

I'd like to see such an algorithm. Similarly for Aspect's experiment.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm not sure #598 describes nuclear decay exactly. I don't think that there are any micro-states that describe the time of decay. I think that the best one can do is get an expected decay time (or equivalently, a half-life.)

[caffe]

Would you agree that science must be self-consistent?It must not contradict itself? You may say that logical self-consistency has no impact on science..are you sure? I think many scholars would claim that not only have we admitted that there is an abstract supernatural realm within mathematics, but these results are not confined to mathematics. Logical self-consistency is crucial to science. The supernatural can have a testable basis and can be scientific. John Wilson, a anti-creationists, states "it is not surprising that unnatural and supernatural phenomena are not represented in the realm of current science, but that fact does not eliminate them from the PROVINCE of science.

note your use of the word "theoretical" Godel's Theorem is a bludgeon and one who respects honest discussion should admit it. Your examples need to be more specific and not be sending me or others down those illusions of facts .

[Right Wing Professor]

There are certain mathematical constructs which are very useful but do not translate well to physical systems. Inversion geometry "in" RWP's single spatial dimension universe is one. Infinity is another construct which is very useful in mathematics but leads to problems in physics.

There are one dimensional problems in our universe, too. There are systems with 1D inversion symmetry. You don't need the second or third dimension, or time, to deal with them.

[js1138]

I was just checking. I don't know the math behind QM and am trusting the consensus on this one. I expect to get out on a limb occasionally and sawed off.

[js1138]

I'd like to see such an algorithm. Similarly for Aspect's experiment.

I'm curious what gambling machines use.

[edsheppa]

Second, the knowledge of the situation is not perfect by definition,...

By definition of what? Knowledge? Perfection?

...so your assertion to the contrary is invalid. We have no visibility inside the blackbox... If we did have internal visibility...

On the contrary. There is no black box, I have completely described the physical situation. An experimenter could construct this apparatus. What is it you find unclear?

[js1138]

Would you agree that science must be self-consistent?It must not contradict itself?

Science is not based on axioms, so contradictions require modifications to definitions and assumpptions. Self-consistency is certainly desirable, but science lives continuously with the unexplained and with apparent contradictions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Most gambling machines (so I've been told) use a multiply recursive pseudo-random number generator coupled to some mechanical source of noise. For example, the PRNG could be always running, but the results modified by the timimg between button pushes by the player and also modified by some oil-damped-piston coupling. These need be only unpredictable in a reasonable amount of time rather than be exhibit truly random behavior. Getting the statistics correct is trivial. Another choice would be to take a real-time-clock as the plaintext and run it through DES; this makes a slow but pretty good PRNG.

[js1138]

I would guess that in gambling it is more important to eliminate the possibility of cheating than it is to have mathematically perfect randomness.